Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

2. LRT does not provide any suitable benefit over BRT.

Except that LRT is more attractive than a loser cruiser.

[mr.A]

Just visited Quito Equador and there rapid bus. It works well but has its limitation. Even with more buses added during rush hour, most are over crowded. This would not be the way of the future for Surrey's rapid growth.

[xd_1771]

Unfortunately we've seen the costs, it's just as effective to build an RRT on the Newton-Whalley-Guildford line as it doesn't really cost any more than an LRT system. On the other hand, BRT won't be able to provide the same capacity and will involve some of the same consequences as an LRT.

I've already heard from a lot of people very angry at Translink's decision to narrow 104th to 2 lanes already, after which point they are probably going to vouch for elevated LRT if there is no way land on the sides can be expropriated for a 4-lane 104th. Why not RRT then? It should be considered that the line is short. Perhaps Guildford's expansion does not depend on transit, but without proper transit accomodations from as many directions as possible, it does indeed mean that most people are still going to come by car and that the car situation in Guildford is not going to improve. Have a look at Richmond's centres, they're located at the end of the line and the business is still exceptionally good, serving locals who are able to walk to the mall and people from other metros alike who are able to take reliable transit to the mall, while leaving an option to drive that's not necessarily easier but not that much harder either.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Unfortunately we've seen the costs, it's just as effective to build an RRT on the Newton-Whalley-Guildford line as it doesn't really cost any more than an LRT system. On the other hand, BRT won't be able to provide the same capacity and will involve some of the same consequences as an LRT.

I've already heard from a lot of people very angry at Translink's decision to narrow 104th to 2 lanes already, after which point they are probably going to vouch for elevated LRT if there is no way land on the sides can be expropriated for a 4-lane 104th. Why not RRT then? It should be considered that the line is short. Perhaps Guildford's expansion does not depend on transit, but without proper transit accomodations from as many directions as possible, it does indeed mean that most people are still going to come by car and that the car situation in Guildford is not going to improve. Have a look at Richmond's centres, they're located at the end of the line and the business is still exceptionally good, serving locals who are able to walk to the mall and people from other metros alike who are able to take reliable transit to the mall, while leaving an option to drive that's not necessarily easier but not that much harder either.

That is specious reasoning. This argument reminds me of that scene in The Simpsons with the bear patrol.

• Video Link

Just because there is a transit line in Richmond, and the malls in Richmond near the transit line are busy, doesn't mean that they are busy BECAUSE of the transit line.

The Canada Line wasn't built to accommodate and encourage teens hanging out at malls, there were more factors at play in both the selection of the route and selection of the mode than just malls and shopping. In fact, if it WAS about malls and shopping, I would say LRT would have been the better choice, it would have had more stations infront of more stores with easier access and could have extended further into Richmond (to bring people shopping).


Also, if rapid transit is so important to encourage people to use it near Guildford, why is preserving lanes on 104 ave important (when there are alternative roads)? If the road width is more important for convenient driving than it is for transit use, then those people don't want transit, they WANT to drive.

If you want rapid transit to improve your neighborhood why should you give 2 craps about people who are coming off the freeway and driving THROUGH your neighborhood. Who cares if their lives are shit, they can take transit.

[NucksFanInVan]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I've already heard from a lot of people very angry at Translink's decision to narrow 104th to 2 lanes already, after which point they are probably going to vouch for elevated LRT if there is no way land on the sides can be expropriated for a 4-lane 104th. Why not RRT then?

Perhaps you could explain the difference in functionality that you perceive between RRT and grade-separated LRT? Aside from a number of technical and technological concerns that don't matter at the concept stage, there probably isn't a lot of difference to me. Skytrain is actually ALRT (yes, those last three letters stand for LRT) but is considered RRT in the Broadway corridor consultation process.

What should be considered at the concept stage is that it makes no sense to build a Guildford stubway a la TTC sheppard line. An RRT stubway to Guildford would never pay itself off. On the other hand, a grade-separated LRT system with driver could continue on the Newton at-grade and be extended further N/E/S/W (pick one) with a dedicated ROW (or not) in the future at a much lower cost.

By all means, let's avoid at-grade transit in neighbourhoods where preserving street capacity is a priority. But let's be clear: the need to avoid local traffic for a few blocks should not be a reason to promote RRT over LRT.

[xd_1771]

The alternative roads are first of all not direct, may be unsuitable, and both are in need of expansion. Serious and expensive road configuration would have to take place to move that traffic off 104th, at which point it would be cheaper to keep 104th to the proper 4 lanes that it deserves. In addition, there is the problem of hampering shorter local traffic patterns that may require car travel, i.e. a parent dropping off their child to school (perfectly reasonable IMO, much rather would drop my child off than have them walk alone or take a bus) Consider how other transit options have been built in Metro Vancouver, NONE of them have had this serious a thought at reducing road capacity, especially in chroncially congested areas. 104th is like the First Avenue of Surrey; there are plenty of alternate routes into Vancouver's downtown core, but First Avenue is the one that is prioritized as it is a straight shot and the most direct; it is made to have as smooth movement as possible with disallowing of left turns and having no buses on the route to interfere with traffic.

Unfortunately the people that are driving THROUGH my neighbourhood are actually something to really be concerned about. There is a large volume of traffic that comes from the highway, and as of recently a lot of them have figured out the traffic situation and have taken to local streets such as 100th and 108th, roads that I use for local traffic movement. These movements are for me and others getting seriously affected, with the clogging effects 104th has becoming similar on these roads now. To make 104th worse would stick more traffic on these roads and by extension such could have effect on the entire neighbourhood. Unfortunately there is really not much way to separate them from the local movements except to get them to use 104th. 104th is fairly separate from residential movements and that is a good thing as it ensures local movements are unaffected, but this is beginning to change. If 104th is reduced in capacity, it will change further and for the worse.

Skytrain RRT lines can integrate well with malls, have a look at Expo Line @ Metrotown, Canada Line @ Oakridge, Canada Line @ Vancouver City Centre... all directly connected to malls and working well with the shopping patterns. Even the Olympic Village-Broadway/City Hall shopping corridor works very well with the Canada Line. The only place I see where it is not working so well is at Brentwood & Lougheed, but I would consider it design & placement issue; neither are directly connected to the shopping centres nearby or actually near other stores/commercial development. However, I wasn't saying anything about the Canada Line being built to Richmond because of the malls. What I'm saying is they work well with the malls; more people are going there now using transit instead of automobile. The same can easily apply to Guildford, which has the single largest and apparently one of the most accessible malls in the SOF.

I'm not thinking of an RRT stubway a-la Expo Line extension to Guildford. The plan I most support is a single, separate and continuous RRT line from Newton to Guildford via Whalley. Concerning building LRT instead, sure it may be somewhat cheaper to build in the future, but unfortunately to implement it now would involve investing in an expensive and brand new technology, an option that may not be viable considering Translink is just about broke. Investing in RRT would, aside from being the better option, be able to use existing technology and cost the same or less first-hand. In addition, I'm not confident that with slower LRT or BRT options that many travel patterns with change. I could take that from Guildford to Newton, or I could drive to Newton via 152nd & 72nd and the latter option would be significantly faster.

Consider that many of BC's major transportation projects in recent years have all been built over-capacity. Highway 91 required an upgrade within months and still sees problems at 72nd Avenue. The Canada Line overcrowded and went way beyond expectations in ridership. Without the tolls on the new PMB, we would see traffic jams again in 10 years. I have had enough with this risky "build minimally" strategy. The best option should be put forward as soon as possible instead of building significantly lower-scale options that may end up nearly never getting upgraded in the time of need.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Also, if rapid transit is so important to encourage people to use it near Guildford, why is preserving lanes on 104 ave important (when there are alternative roads)? If the road width is more important for convenient driving than it is for transit use, then those people don't want transit, they WANT to drive.

If you want rapid transit to improve your neighborhood why should you give 2 craps about people who are coming off the freeway and driving THROUGH your neighborhood. Who cares if their lives are shit, they can take transit.

It's kind of interesting there's an uproar over destroying viaducts vs the almost unanimous support for shrinking 104th Ave. How do any of the two make sense at all? Even weirder, one has transit paralleling it already (viaducts) so why should we keep it? It's redundant, taking up land, will annoy future residents, and all that traffic can be shoved around somewhere else. Heck, why is SFPR being built, or any other road project for that matter? Can we not promote freight trains and more rapid transit by leaving them crumbling as is?

You might call me ridiculous, but I'm only continuing and elaborating on the same line of thinking.

Anyway, back to reality... If the road shrinks and all the traffic happens to come from places not well served by transit, and there's no park and ride to deal with them, then it'll be a gong show on 104th for all of the following:
- LRT / BRT, due to drivers making dangerous moves in front of the reserved lanes to get to places on time
- cars and delivery trucks, due to congestion and lack of turning
- pedestrians, due to bad gas fumes from idling and long waits for LRT because of the above
- the environment, due to emissions from idling
So how is this any better? =S

Maybe one thing we can all agree on is finding out how many cars use 104th, where they all come from, and checking whether they are adequately served by transit now and whether they will be better served in the future. Only then will we know whether the shrinking of the road as planned is worth the trade-off.

Also, TransLink may have done the study already since thy came up with their preferred approach but I want it to be double-checked and released to public scrutiny just to make sure that ideology is not the main driving force (aka viaduct removal).

(Please note that I am now in favour of either BRT, LRT, or RRT towards Guildford and have no prejudice towards LRT or BRT options.)

[bardak]

It is definitely healthy to compare the removal of the viaducts and narrowing 104. That being said there are some major differences between the two. The viaducts question is a sentimental one where the argument is that they separate the community. From what I've there is nothing else going on it the area that would effect transportation. While with 104 along side the introduction of rapid transit there is SFPR and highway one Rapid Bus.

[xd_1771]

While the SFPR may offload some truck movement, I highly doubt it will purpose itself as a main route into the Surrey City Centre.

[Millennium2002]

Adding to xd's comment the SFPR would actually act as a city bypass rather than a city access route. I think it'd do more relief towards 88th Ave and the other crosstown corridors than 104th.

As for dividing communities, I think BCPhil just used that same argument to justify narrowing 104th Ave. =S Also, I live on Knight Street... with six heavily used lanes each way and trucks roaring up and down all the time... omg! a safety hazard to pedestrians right? and yet I really don't mind about walking across the street at 49th Ave to buy some KFC or take a bus. =S

And just another point: with the completion of the Canada Line, and following the same train of thought of downsizing streets due to replacement capacity elsewhere, one would assume that Vancouver and Richmond would have downsized No 3 Rd and Cambie Street... and yet they retain essentially the same capacity as before.

I could go on and on about Lougheed Highway and Millennium Line and all the other examples that probably exist elsewhere in this world...

[Whalleyboy]

While I think all will agree it be perfect if we could keep all 4 lanes. But if we had to lose one for now to get some LRT transit going connecting the guidlford central area it would be fine with some. We need better transit NOW if it means taking out one lane its better then waiting another 10 years for translink to have the money to do it then.

[xd_1771]

If the capacity were to be reduced sooner, then there would be some route shifting required and tons of upgrades required to the shifted routes if any traffic from the east coming into Surrey City Centre is to be kept moving. In addition, for the most part on the route there is really not much to expropriate; some sections eastbound have already been built with a third lane on the side. It would end up being cheaper and more effective to widen the ROW for 4 lanes + LRT rather than to keep it the same way it is and have to expand more than one other road. This is different in the case of First Avenue in Vancouver, half the route is narrow and through residential and there is absolutely no room to expand. On 104th, there is plenty of room and not much to expropriate. It would cost the same, perhaps less (when the costs associated with required upgrades of other routes are taken into account) to give 104th four lanes to the city centre. This is not even taking into consideration that there are various important local traffic movements on 100th and 108th that would be severely affected if more traffic were to plague these routes.

Consider that for a lot of the day, there's going to be absolutely nothing on the LRT or BRT lanes because they won't run frequently enough. Sure, you're giving pedestrians slightly more distance to cross, but there's not really going to be any change in how many traffic lanes they actually cross.

So far most (well, pretty much all) the people who I have asked so far concerning reducing road capacity on 104th, do not support it. Transit users and drivers alike.

[Canadian Mind]

someone got a link for the study that's easy to find?

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

If the capacity were to be reduced sooner, then there would be some route shifting required and tons of upgrades required to the shifted routes if any traffic from the east coming into Surrey City Centre is to be kept moving. In addition, for the most part on the route there is really not much to expropriate; some sections eastbound have already been built with a third lane on the side. It would end up being cheaper and more effective to widen the ROW for 4 lanes + LRT rather than to keep it the same way it is and have to expand more than one other road. This is different in the case of First Avenue in Vancouver, half the route is narrow and through residential and there is absolutely no room to expand. On 104th, there is plenty of room and not much to expropriate. It would cost the same, perhaps less (when the costs associated with required upgrades of other routes are taken into account) to give 104th four lanes to the city centre. This is not even taking into consideration that there are various important local traffic movements on 100th and 108th that would be severely affected if more traffic were to plague these routes.

Consider that for a lot of the day, there's going to be absolutely nothing on the LRT or BRT lanes because they won't run frequently enough. Sure, you're giving pedestrians slightly more distance to cross, but there's not really going to be any change in how many traffic lanes they actually cross.

So far most (well, pretty much all) the people who I have asked so far concerning reducing road capacity on 104th, do not support it. Transit users and drivers alike.

104 ave where LRT is is not the most direct route for all as you think. Well it the best one for people in guildford and central to go east on hwy its easier to go down 108 to go west. People in cloverdale and even south surrey wont use it. People in fleetwood would go down 152 street to 104ave to where the LRT doesnt go since it would likely end at the mall. Heavy trucks would be baned from use of 104ave since they would be push to go around the city instead of through. But hey if your for waiting 20 years fro transit by all means keep pushing your way. Some times you gotta have sacrfices for the great good though. If losing a lane for some time is what it is so be it

[xd_1771]

Unfortunately losing a lane affects not just a few traffic movements but the entire community, and perhaps even the cost of the entire project. 100th and 108th will not survive the extra traffic load avoiding 104th without upgrades throughout, which will only add to the cost and construction time; in any case the traffic using these alternate roads as diverted would seriously tamper with important local movements.

Cutting off this lane would be like taking an axe to a tree. The more you axe, the more likely the person cutting it down is going to end up yelling "TIMMMMMMBEERRRRRRRR" in the very end. A lot is at stake.

You could also think of it this way: In 20 years, the transit improvements were completed about 4-5 years ago and the community is in tip-top shape, moving, growing, living and breathing. Or, in 20 years, the transit improvements were completed about 10-12 years ago and are inferior. As the majority of traffic is unable to move, the community is basically dead.

[Whalleyboy]

I really think you over credit 104 ave. Personally i see it is a busy road yes but really its nothing like you seem to treat it as. as for 108 ave and 100th first plans are already in the work to 4 lane it all the way through which i've told you many many times also i've told you there is the 105a ave connector route being planned to between central and guidlfrod which is for local traffic so they can aviod 104 thus taking even more traffic of it. You seem very stuck on thinking 104 is the only road connectin between the two.

[xd_1771]

I don't see how 105A could be useful as anything more than a connector for a few local residents, honestly. Aside from it not even being a complete corridor that connects both ends without any turns or gaps, there's really no incentive on using it. I live on a street that all the time could be used as a speedy and very, very useful alternative to the busy 104th between 152nd & 160th. Except for the few trucks who illegally pass through this route (I'm not seeing them that often anymore either), no one uses this road except the local residents. That traffic uses 104th, stuck in the traffic, or decides to clog 100th instead.

[Whalleyboy]

most locals are usign 104 for the reason to get between the two which 105 a ave connector would do since it goes all the way from 132 street to 154 street with out need fo zig zaging on different streets. As it stands only 100 104 and 108 have those connections. This will indeed help alot as it will take alot of people off 104 since it connect locals to the main two points they would use 104 ave for 104 is not the best route for many heck even when i live in central i would go up 100th to 160th to get on the hwy to go east bound instead of going up 104. 104 is only really good for people to stupid to know how to travel in fast routes to and from the hwy. oh and now these days i travel up 108 around the automall then turn left on 104 where the LRT wouldnt go since it would end at the mall

[xd_1771]

Alright, let's say 105A is used. 105A clogs, non-local traffic moves onto using 105A. 105A clogs, and local traffic movement is back in the shimmies.

The same thing is happening right now on 100th avenue particularly between 152nd and 160th, and it is thanks to you and the other people smart enough to use it. I and many of the people I know who live around here have a lot of trouble getting places. This traffic should be placed onto a route that is prioritized, where other such traffic is not affected and that is 104th, which also happens to be the most direct route to Central. Vancouver does the same thing with First Avenue by prioritizing; in fact the city is even trying to reduce road capacity on alternate east-west roads such as Hastings, to prevent people from using it and hampering the busy local movements there. And Hastings is arguably more direct (route-wise) into downtown than First, Terminal & the Viaducts.

[dubsH]

Surrey really deserves LRT at the least. However, I don't get why there's such a push for SkyTrain for Guildford. Newton I can understand in that it can act as a regional hub for North Delta and South Surrey (and I support for a SkyTrain extension if funds are available). Guildford has half the population as Newton (if you're counting Walnut Grove with Guildford, then North Delta should be included with Newton). I support SkyTrain on Broadway because it is an extension of the current system and Broadway already has the density, employment and nodes to make it viable. How many people really go to Guildford from Newton? Since it won't be a connection to the existing Expo Line, I can't see why other technology can't be used, such as at-grade Light Rail. If there's such a demand for Guildford-Newton travel ... try a B-line first at the very least. That's how Burnaby got the Millenium Line, Richmond got the Canada Line, and how Coquitlam will get the Evergreen Line.

I see the major argument is the beloved 104th Ave and comparing it to No. 3 "retaining" the same # of lanes after Canada Line. That's not entirely true, considering prior to the B-line buslane... No. 3 had 6 lanes. They were already reduced before, and people adapted fine (considering No. 3 is a much more important road for Richmond than I imagine 104th Ave is for Surrey).

Also, Guildford Mall is not a regional destination, nor will it be with a SkyTrain station right beside it. I don't go to Brentwood because it's on the Millenium Line, I go there if there's a store that I cannot absolutely find anywhere else (incidentally, there aren't, so that's why I don't go to Brentwood). What's the regional draw for Guildford? Why wouldn't I just go to Surrey Central or switch lines to Expo so I could go to Metrotown instead?